1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15734 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1 . MR. D.SEETHARAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O DEVAIAH R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 2 . MR. SOMASUNDARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O NANJUNDAIAH R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. 3 . MR. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE BYRAPPA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 2 4 . MRS. D.KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O LATE DYAVAPPA R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 5 . MRS. D.SUNANDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O LATE DYAVAPPA R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 6 . MRS. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O MR. D.SEETHARAM R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 7 . MR. S.TEJAS AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MR. D.SEETHARAM R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 8 . MS. S.MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O MR. D.SEETHARAM R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 3 BENGALURU – 560 016. 9 . MRS. D.MANJULA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O LATE DYAVAPPA R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. 10 . MRS. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O MR. SOMASUNDARA REDDY R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 11 . MR. N.ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE B.K.NANJUNDAIAH GRANDSON OF LATE B.KAMAIAH R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. 12 . MR. SURENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE B.K.NANJUNDAIAH GRANDSON OF LATE B.KAMAIAH R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010 13 . MRS. N.MAMATHA VASUDEV AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE B.K.NANJUNDAIAH GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE B.KAMAIAH W/O DR. VASUDEV R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. 4 14 . MR. B.K.RAGHUNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE B.K.BHASKAR REDDY GRANDSON OF LATE B.KAMAIAH R/AT K-128, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. 15 . MR. B.HEMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE B.K.BHASKAR REDDY GRAND SON OF LATE B.KAMAIAH R/OF NO.776, 7TH MAIN NAGARBHAVI 9TH BLOCK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 072. 16 . MRS. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O MR. RAMANNA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 17 . MRS. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O MR. RAMANNA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 18 . MRS. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE JAYAPPA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 5 19 . MRS. SHARADHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O LATE JAYAPPA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 20 . MR. KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O LATE JAYAPPA R/AT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. PETITIONER NOS.01 TO 20 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. J.T.SATISHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAPPA NO.88, “AMMA”, I MAIN 10TH ‘A’ CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 086. 21 . MRS. LAKSHMAMMA D., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS D/O LATE DYAVAPPA R/AT NO.55/1 KALKERE 9TH CROSS MANJUNATHA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 016. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.RAVI SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI MANU P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) 6 AND: 1 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. THROUGH ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI MANJUNATHA N.BYRAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, BY EXECUTING THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS, PURSUANT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED RELINQUISHMENT DEED DTD 12.04.2021 ANNEXURE-L. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 7 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for acquisition of schedule property in the form of Transferrable Development Rights (‘TDRs’) by executing appropriate Development Rights Certificate (‘DRCs’) in favour of the petitioners pursuant to execution of registered relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’). 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - 2.1. The petitioners are the owners of the property situated in Sy.No.16 of Malagala Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 9 acres 2 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule to the petition. The property is utilized to an extent of 8 acres and 25 guntas and remaining 17 guntas was kharab land. During the subsistence of ownership of the petitioners, a 8 preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) is issued and the schedule property is proposed to be acquired. A final notification thereafter is also issued under Section 19 of the Act, at which point in time the schedule property did not find its place in the final notification. A second final notification is issued on 05.08.1986, in which the schedule property finds its place. It is the case of the respondent/BDA that on 19-12-1986 an award is passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation of ₹5,56,036.25 was ordered to be deposited before the civil Court for adjudication under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioners have not received any compensation till date. 2.2. The acquisition proceedings, on the score that no compensation was paid for more than 10 years, becomes the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition 19922-24 of 2014. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in terms of its order dated 16-03-2016 allowed the petition, on the score that the scheme had lapsed as obtaining under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The 9 order of the coordinate Bench dated 16-03-2016 is challenged before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1695 of 2016 which is pending consideration even till date. When things stood thus, the 1st petitioner submits a representation for grant of adequate compensation in favour of the petitioners for the acquisition of schedule property, including compensation by way of grant of TDR as obtaining under Section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the KTCP Act’ for short). 2.3. The averment in the petition is that the representation had been processed and TDRs in respect of acquisition of land was opined to be granted. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1695 of 2016, which was challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 16-03-2016, grants an interim order directing maintenance of status quo qua the possession of the schedule property. Then springs a communication from the Executive Engineer of the BDA, asking the SLAO to get a relinquishment deed executed by the petitioners. On 12-06-2019 the BDA addresses a communication to the 2nd respondent/Department of Urban Development indicating 10 that the Commissioner has approved execution of relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioners. This fructifies into execution of registered relinquishment deed. 2.4. As per the registered relinquishment deed, the agreement was for grant of TDR in favour of the petitioners in exchange for the petitioners relinquishing their rights over the schedule property and accordingly, DRCs would be granted in favour of the petitioners. An application comes to be filed before the Division Bench in I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to dispose of the writ appeal directing to pay compensation in the form of TDR in respect of the schedule property pursuant to the registered relinquishment deed. Then the BDA issues a notice for cancellation of registered relinquishment deed. The Division Bench observes that creation of a right in favour of the petitioners and execution of registered relinquishment deed and subsequent cancellation would form a separate cause of action, which is beyond the scope of the writ appeal. The petitioners were left to seek appropriate remedy in law. 11 2.5. On 27-02-2023, the BDA then communicates to the Urban Development Department to issue a notification for grant of TDRs even where acquisition had been through settlements. By then, the subject petition had been preferred seeking a direction for grant of TDRs in the light of liberty reserved by the Division Bench. An affidavit comes to be filed by the 1st respondent/Commissioner of BDA, on 22-04-2025 during the subsistence of the subject petition, before a coordinate Bench in a different matter, that communication was made to the Urban Development Department to consider issuing of TDRs and DRCs to several persons including the petitioners. The Urban Development Department then issues a communication stating that the petitioners cannot be granted TDRs. It is at that stage the subject petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Manjunatha N. Byrareddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2. 12 4.1. The learned senior counsel Sri D. R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the act of the respondents in denying TDR and DRC is arbitrary. The petitioners are entitled to TDR in terms of the registered relinquishment deed dated 12-04-2021 and not as per the approval of the Commissioner. The notings in the file maintained in the Department clearly indicates that relinquishment deed was sought to be executed in lieu of TDR with the approval of the Commissioner. Right, title and interest of the petitioners arise from the registered relinquishment deed. The issuance of DRC is only a ministerial act pursuant to execution of relinquishment deed. 4.2. The learned senior counsel submits that because an individual holding the public office changes, the earlier decisions cannot be made to vanish in thin air. The respondents are bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the deliverance of the TDRs, since the petitioners have relied on the said promise and have entered into a registered relinquishment deed. The cause of action for filing the present petition arose from the date of registration of 13 relinquishment deed and the liberty granted by the Division Bench. He would seek a direction for release of TDRs and DRCs. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/BDA would refute the submissions in contending that it is only the opinion of the Law Officer that has been accepted by the Commissioner, BDA but no final order has been made regarding grant of TDR to the petitioners. The petitioners have not produced any final order of the Commissioner for execution of registered relinquishment deed. The Commissioner has not granted any approval for grant of TDR in favour of the petitioners. The lands are acquired for the public purpose. The land lowers are entitled to compensation and compensation is already deposited in the recurring deposit account. The petitioners having been compensated are not entitled to TDRs. An affidavit is subsequently filed by the Commissioner holding that the BDA would grant TDRs to the petitioners subject to approval by the Government and the Government has rejected the TDRs in favour of the petitioners. 14 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to grant of TDRs and DRCs? 7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are broadly undisputed, but would require a sketchy reiteration. The schedule lands belonging to the petitioners become the subject matter of acquisition. Second final notification comes to be issued on 05-08-1986. After the passing of the award, the petitioners challenge the said acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition Nos.19922-24 of 2014. The writ petitions come to be allowed on 16-03-2016 and acquisition of the subject lands was quashed by the following order: “2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question has been notified under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The preliminary notification was dated 15.07.1982 followed by a final notification dated 16.08.1985. Thereafter, an award is to have been passed, the amount of compensation has been deposited in a revenue deposit in a sum of Rs.5,56,036.25, as per the submissions made by the BDA in its statement of objections. This Court while disposing of a batch of petitions has formed an opinion that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 15 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’, for brevity) is applicable in so far as the B.D.A. Act, 1976 is concerned. Consequently, Section 24 of the 2013 Act is made applicable. It could follow that not only the Scheme has lapsed, but also the acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the said Act. 3. Consequently, the petitions are summarily allowed. The acquisition in respect of the land in question stands quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.” The acquisition was quashed on the score that the scheme had lapsed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It is not in dispute that possession of the schedule property continues to be with the petitioners even on the date of passing of the order. 8. The BDA then challenged the said order before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1695 of 2016. The writ appeal does not come up before the Court for close to 24 months. The petitioners then submit a representation for grant of compensation by way of TDR as obtaining under the KTCP Act. The representation dated 27-12-2018 reads as follows: “ಂದ : ೕ . ೕ ಾಾಮ 16 #55/1, ಕೆೆ, 9ೇ ಅಡರೆ, ಮಂಜುಾಥ ಬಾವೆ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. ಇವ%&ೆ: ಆಯುಕರು ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ 0.1ೌಡಯ3 ರೆ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. 4ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂ:ನ ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@ಯ ಮಳಗಲ(ಮ®&ಾಲ). &ಾಮದ £ÀAೆನಂಬB 16ರCನ 8 ಎಕೆ ಮತು 25 ಗುಂEೆಗಳ 4 ೕಣG ಭೂIಯ ಾJ.ೕನವನುK ರದುL&ೊ@ಸುವ ಬ&ೆN. ಉೇಖ: 1. WÀ£ÀvɪÉvÀÛ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ jmï Cfð ¸ÀA:19922-19924/2014 ರC Pೕರುವ QೕRGನ ಪSಾTೕಕೃತ ಪQ. 2. CqÉÆéÃPÉmï d£ÀgÀ¯ï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÉÆñÀzÀ ಮುಖ3ಸUರು ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ, ಬಹುಮಹ ಕಟYಡ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಇವ%&ೆ ಬೆದ +ಾಂಕ: 17.6.2016ರ ಪತ. **** [ೕCನ 4ಷಯದ ಬ&ೆN ತಮ\ ಗಮನ ೆ]ೆಯು ಾ ಮತು ಘನvÉವತ ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ Qೕಪ>G ?ಾಗೂ ಅದರ [ೕೆ ಅಡJ/ೇb ಜನರc ಅವರ ಅ)-ಾಯವನುK ಉೇdಸು ಾ. Pಮ\ ಪ%ಗಣೆ&ೆ ಾವ> /ೆಳeನಂ ೆ ಸCಸಲು ಬಯಸು ೇAೆ. [ೕCನ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©rJ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1976ರ ಅಯC ಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಳfಲು ಅ.ಸೂgಸಾತು. -ಾಥIಕ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯ£ÀÄß +ಾಂಕ: 15.7.1982ರC ?ೊರಸಾದೆ, ಅಂQಮ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯನುK 16.8.1985 ರC ?ೊರಸಾತು. ಅದರ ನಂತರ QೕಪGನುK ?ೊರಸಾದರೂ ಸಹ ಪ%?ಾರವನುK ಾ3aಾಲಯದC hೇವT SಾಡCಲ ಮತು 0ಎಯ ಕಂiಾಯ hೇವT Vಾ ೆಯCjೕ ಅದನುK ಉ@ /ೊಳfಾತು. ಪ%?ಾರವನುK -ಾವQ Sಾಡ+ದುLದ%ಂದ ೊಂದು [ೕCನ %b ಅkGಯನುK ಸCಸಾತು. %b ಅkGಯನುK 4ೇAಾ% SಾಡುAಾಗ, lೕಜೆಯು ಗQ ?ೋeiೆ' ಎಂದು ಘನ ೆAೆತ ಉಚm ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ಗಮP ಾJ.ೕನ ೆಯನುK ರದುL&ೊ@ ತು. ಾ3ಯಯುತ ಪ%?ಾರ ಮತು ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನದC -ಾರದಶGಕ ೆ, ಪ>ನವGಸQ ಮತು 17 ಪ>ನªÀåðವೆU ಅ.Pಯನು, 2013ರ ಹಕುn 0ಎ ಅ.Pಯಮ, 1976ಕೂn ಅನJಸುತiೆ ಎಂದು ಉಚm ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ಅ)-ಾಯಪoYತು. [ೕಲ\ನ4&ಾe ಇದು ಸೂಕAಾದ 41ಾರವಲ ಎಂದು ಅqÉÆéÃ/ೇb ಜನರcರವರು ಸಹ G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀnÖzÁÝgÉ, GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À ದೃpYಂದ 0ಎ ಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಂರುವ ಭೂI&ೆ ಾ3ಯಯುತ ಪ%?ಾರ ಮತು ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನದC -ಾರದಶGಕ ೆ, ಪ>ನವGಸQ ಮತು ಪ>ನವ3Gವ¸ÉÜ ಅ.Pಯಮ, 2013ರ ಅಯC ಾವ> ಪ%?ಾರ/ೆn ಅಹGಾeiೆLೕAೆ. [ೕCನ ಆ ಯು ಪqಣGAಾe ಅ)ವೃ+,&ೊಂದLರೂ ಸಹ ಕಂiಾಯ iಾಖೆಗಳr ಇನೂK SಾCೕಕರ ?ೆಸ%ನCjೕ ಇAೆ. ಈ ಪ% UQಯC /ೆಳeನ aಾವ>iಾದರೂ 4tಾನಗಳನುK ಅನುಸ% 8 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆಗ@&ೆ ಪ%?ಾರವನುK -ಾವQ Sಾಡ ೇ/ೆಂದು ಾವ> /ೋರು ೇAೆ. (1) ಾ3ಯಯುತ ಪ%?ಾರ ಮತು ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನದC -ಾರದಶGಕ ೆ, ಪ>ನವGಸQ ಮತು ಪ>ನವ3GವೆU ಅ.Pಯಮ, 2013ರ ಅಯC ನಗದು ಪ%?ಾರ ಅಥAಾ (2) ಅuೆYೕ Sೌಲ3ದ ಮತು ಅuೆYೕ 4 ೕಣGದ ಪaಾGಯ ಭೂIಯ ಮಂಜೂಾQ ಅಥAಾ (3) ಕ]ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ಭೂIಯನುK 4 ೕಣG/ೆn ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ವ&ಾGವೆ (oಆB) 44ಧ /ಾರಣಗ@ಂದ (1) ಮತು (2)ೇ ಆjnಗಳr /ಾಯGಾಧ3Aಾಗ+ದLೆ. ಾವ> ಕ]ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀAvÉ CªÀAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀ nrDgï C£ÀÄß M¦àPÉƼÀî®Ä £ÁªÀÅ vÀAiÀiÁjzÉÝêÉ. [ೕCನ ಆ &ೆ ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ aಾವ>iೇ ಪ%ತ3kಸುವ ಪತವನುK ಸಹ ಬೆದು/ೊಡಲು ಾವ> ದ,%iೆLೕAೆ. ವಂದೆಗ]ೆ#ಂ+&ೆ.” The representation is acted upon by movement of file in the Department. The notings in the file before the Department concerning the subject lis is appended to the petition. The file notings are as follows: “(97) ²æà r.¹ÃvÁgÁA JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.12.2018, gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG £ÀA.16gÀ°è 8-25 UÀÄAmÉ 18 d«ÄãÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.8.85 gÀ°è CawªÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ ಪ%?ಾರವನುK -ಾವQಸiೆ ಇರುವ>ದ%ಂದ ಉwಚ ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ಾJ.ೕನ ೆಯನುK ರದುL&ೊ@ ದುL, ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> Pೕರುವ QೕRGನನJಯ (1) ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ /ಾjL 2013 ಅಯC ಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ (2) ಅuೆY Sೌಲ3ದ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CµÉÖ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÄgÁw CxÀªÁ (3) ಕ]ೆದು/ೊಂಡ ಭೂIಯನುK 4 ೕಣG/ೆn ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ವ&ಾGವೆ (TDR) Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ /ೋ%ರು ಾೆ. Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರು, +ಾಂಕ 24.12.2018 ರಂದು ಅkGಯನುK ಮಂಸುವಂ ೆ ಸೂg ರು ಾೆ. ಸದ% ಸ.ನಂ. ಜIೕP&ೆ Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ W.P.No.19922-19924/2014 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.3.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ ರiಾLeದುL, ಸದ% ಆiೇಶದ 4ರುದ, ಸCಸಾeರುವ W.A.No.1695/2016ರ ಬ&ೆN ವರ+ ಪೆಯಲು ಕಡತವನುK /ಾನೂನು 4xಾಗ+ಂದ SಾyQ ಪೆಯಲು /ಾನೂನು 4xಾಗ/ೆn ಕಡತ ಕಳryಸುವ ಬ&ೆN ಆiೇಶ /ೋ%iೆ. ಸy/- 31/12/18 (98) ರೇiಾರರು) ರzೆ (99) SLAO) PÀArPÉ '97 C’ gÀ §UÉÎ ªÀgÀ¢UÁV ¸À°è¹zÉ. ಸy/- 4{ೇಷ ಭೂಾJ.ೕಾ./ಾ%ಗಳr ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. (100) Law Officer) Verify & also WP files & WA file before (O) Suptd. Sd/- (101) Perused prepares, representation submitted by Sri. D.Seetaram & others who are the legal heirs of the Kathedars of land in Sy.No.16 of Malagala village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli and Legal section file In respect of Writ Petition Nos. 19922-24/2014 and orders passed therein. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP Nos.19922- 19924/2014 was passed an order dated 16-3-2016 stating that the acquisition in respect of the land in question stands quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned in Sy.No.16 of 19 Malagala village, measuring 8 acres 25 guntas of land. As per the orders of the then Commissioner, Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the said order vide WA No.1695/2016 and it is pending for disposal. In the meantime, the applicants have submitted the representation to the Learned requesting them to give alternate land equivalent to 8 acres 25 guntas of land or the cash compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act 2013) or by way of Transfer of Development Right (TDR) as the said land physically is not available for their use, as the BDA has already formed layout and utilized the same under allotment/Bulk allotment and the compensation amount is still in the BDA Revenue Account of the BDA. As verified from the Rules, Court orders and interest of the BDA, it is opined that, in this case TDR may be granted in favour of the applicants subject to execution of relinquishment deed by the applicant and after withdrawal of the Writ Appeal filed by the BDA and by referring the file to the appropriate Section for further needful. Sd/- Law Officer-I (102) SLAO) Sd/- (103) PÀArPÉ 97gÀ CA±ÀzÀ §UÉÎ PÀArPÉ 101gÀ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C©ü¥ÁævÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ಅ)-ಾಯದC Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ. 16ರC 8 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀzÀ d«ÄäUÉ §zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£À/ºÉƸÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ /ಾjL 2013ರ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ/n.r.Dgï. ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ಈ&ಾಗೇ -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಬಾವೆ&ೆ ಉಪlೕe ದುL, ಪ%?ಾರವನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಆB.. Vಾ ೆಯC ಇಡಾeರುತiೆ. /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಗಳr Pೕರುವ ಅ)-ಾಯದಂ ೆ o..ಆB. Pೕಡುವ |ದಲು ಅkGiಾರ%ಂದ %CQéuೆ\ಂb ೕ} ಪೆದು ನಂತರ -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಾ3aಾಲಯ/ೆn ಸCಸಾದ 20 ಅRೕಲನುK yಂದ/ೆn ಪೆದು /ಾನೂPನನJಯ ಮುಂ+ನ ಕಮವyಸುವಂ ೆ ಅ)-ಾಯ ಪoYರುವ ಬ&ೆN Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರ ಆiೇಶ ?ಾಗೂ PiೇGಶನ /ೋರಲು ಕಡತವನುK ಉಪ ಆಯುಕರು (ಭೂ¸Áé) ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ Sಾ£Àå ಆಯುಕ%&ೆ ಕಳryಸುವ ಬ&ೆN ಆiೇಶ /ೋ%iೆ. ಸy/- (104) ರೇiಾರರು) ಕಂ/ೆ 101ರC /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಗಳr Pೕರುವ ಅ)-ಾಯವನುK ಅವ&ಾಹೆ&ೆ ತರು ಾ, Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರ ಸೂಕ ಆiೇಶ/ಾne ಸC iೆ. ಸy/- (105) SLAO) ಕಂ/ೆ 101ರC /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಗಳr Pೕರುವ ಅ)-ಾಯದಂ ೆ ಕಮವyಸಲು Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರ ಆiೇಶ/ೆn ಸCಸಬಹುiಾeiೆ. ಸy/- (106) ಉಪ ಆಯುಕರು) ಕಂ/ೆ 101ರCನ /ಾನೂನು {ಾVೆಯ ಅ)-ಾಯವನುK ತಮ\ ಅವ&ಾಹೆ&ೆ ಸC iೆ. ಅ)-ಾಯದಂ ೆ ಕಮವyಸಬಹುiಾeದುL ಆದನ/ೆn ಸC iೆ. ಸy/- ಉ.ಆ. (ಭೂಾJ) (107) Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರು) Pl.see Sd/- (108) EO) ಪಸುತ 1ಾ°ÛಯCರುವ ಕಾGಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜಾ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1961gÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï 14-© gÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ CA±À (j) ರC ವ3ಕAಾeರುವ "ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶ" ಅಥG Aಾ3Vಾ3ನದ Aಾ3Rlಳ&ೆ ಬರುವ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ “C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß” ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj /ಾjLಯ ಪQಯನುK ಕಡತದ ಬಲxಾಗದC ಇಡಾeiೆ. ಸದ% ಕಡತದC ಪಾR ರುವ 4ಷಯ ಪ%ೕCಸಲು, AಾಸವAಾe ಪKತ ಜIೕನನುK aಾವ ಉiೆLೕಶಗ@&ಾe ಮತು ಎಷುY ಪSಾಣದ ಜIೕನನುK AಾಸವAಾe ಬಳಸಾeiೆjಂಬ ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಸಂಪqಣG SಾyQಯ ಅಗತ34iೆ. ಸy/- ಎೆYೕb ಆ~ೕಸB (109) Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರು) 21 ಸy/- (110) D.C. (LA) ಸy/- ಉ.ಆ. (ಭೂಾ\) (111) SLAO) Sd/- (112) PÀArPÉ 108gÀ°è ªÀiÁ»w CUÀvÀå«gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸À.£ÀA.16gÀ ಜIೕPನ AಾಸAಾಂಶದ ಬ&ೆN ವರ+ ಸCಸಲು /ಾಯG-ಾಲ ಅ)ಯಂತರರು, ಪ`ಮ 4xಾಗದವ%&ೆ ಪತ ಬೆಯುವ ಬ&ೆN ಆiೇಶ /ೋ%iೆ. ಒR€ದC ಬೆ+ರುವ ಪತ ಅನು|ೕದೆ&ೆ ಮಂ iೆ. ಸy/- (113) ರೇiಾರರು) ಕಂ/ೆ 108ರC EO ರವರು /ೋ%ರುವ ಬ&ೆN SಾyQ ಪೆಯಲು /ಾಯG-ಾಲಕ ಅ)ಯಂತರ%&ೆ ಅ.o. ದ,ಪ ದುL, ಒR€ದC ಸy&ಾe /ೋ%iೆ. ಸy/- (114) SLAO) ಕಂ/ೆ 108ರಂ ೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಕ•ೇ%ಯ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ oಪ€T ಪತ £ÀA.¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ/«.¨sÀÆ.¸Áé.C./2138/1819 ¢£ÁAPÀ 30/1/19 ರಂ ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟY ಅ)ಯಂತರರು ?ಾಗೂ ಭೂSಾಪಕರ zೊ ೆಯC ಜಂoaಾe ಸUಳ ತPVೆ Sಾ ಅ¼ÉÛ Sಾ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ oಪ€TಯC Q@ ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳಂ ೆ ನ‚ೆ ತaಾ% ನ‚ೆಯC 4ವ% ದ ನ‚ೆಯC ಜಂoaಾe ಅ)ಯಂತರರು, ಭೂSಾಪಕರ zೊ ೆಯC ಸy Sಾರು ೆ ಇದೊಂ+&ೆ ದೃƒೕಕೃತ ಸAೆG ಕ•ೇ%ಯ iಾಖೆಗಳr Binny HBCS Layout ರವ%&ೆ Bulk Allotment ಪ/ಾರ ಆeರುವ ಕಯಪತದ ದೃƒೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು, ಅಂQಮ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ Xerox ಪQ, 16(2) Award ಆeರುವ Xerox ಪQ, ಲಗQ iೆ. -ಾ./ಾರದ PಯSಾವ@ಗಳಂ ೆ ಮುಂ+ನ ಸೂಕ ಕಮ/ೆn ಪqಣG ಕಡತವನುK ಕ•ೇ%&ೆ ಒR€ iೆ. ಸy/-.” As per the notings in the file, it was the opinion that TDRs be granted, subject to execution of a relinquishment deed by the petitioners and after withdrawal of the writ appeal by filing a joint 22 memo. This could be gathered from the noting at Sl.No.121 which reads as follows: “(121) EO) (i) PÀArPÉ 120 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ಚgGಸಾeದುL, ಕಂ/ೆ 101 (A) ರಂ ೆ W.A. ¨ÁQ¬ÄzÀÄÝ, 101(B) gÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ಸJತ: ಭೂಾJ.ೕನAಾದಂ ೆ ಪ%?ಾರ /ೋ%ರುವಂ ೆ, WA, yಂಪೆಯಬಹುದು. (ii) ಅkGiಾರ%&ೆ, 8-25 ಎ/ಗುಂEೆ&ೆ, ಈ&ಾಗೇ -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಭೂಬಳ/ೆ Sಾರುವಂ ೆ ಪ%?ಾರವನುK TDR ಮೂಲಕ Pೕಡಬಹುದು. (iii) TDR ಅನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಬಾವೆಯC Pೕಡುವ ಬ&ೆN ಸ/ಾGರ/ೆn ಪತ ಬೆದಂ ೆ ಕಮ/ೈ&ೊಳfಬಹುiಾeದುL, ಕಡತವನುK ತಮ\ ಅವ&ಾಹೆ&ಾe ಸC iೆ. LO {ಾVೆ&ೆ ವ&ಾGಸಲು ಆiೇಶ /ೋ%iೆ. ಸy/- ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. ಎೆYೕb ಆ~ೕಸB ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.” When the file was being processed, the Division Bench in terms of the order dated 15-02-2019 directed maintenance of status quo qua possession of the schedule property. After the said order comes the communication between the SLAO and the Executive Engineer dated 03-05-2019, which is germane to be noticed. The communication reads as follows: 23 “ಸಂVೆ3: ೆಂಅ-ಾ/4ಭೂಾJಅ/ 49/2019-20 4{ೇಷ ಭೂಾJ.ೕಾ./ಾ%ಗಳ ಕ•ೇ% ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ. ೆಂಗಳ#ರು +ಾಂಕ: 03.05.2019 ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ oಪ€T oಪ€T oಪ€T oಪ€T 4ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರC 8-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನC ಖಾಬು 0-17 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ ಬದC PAೇಶನ oಆB/ಬದC ಜIೕನು /ೋ%ರುವ ಬ&ೆN. ಉೇಖ:- Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಡಬು‡.R.ನಂ.19922-24/2014 +ಾಂಕ 16.03.2016. **** [ೕಲnಂಡ 4ಷಯ ಮತು ಉೇಖ/ೆn ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@. Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರC 9-02- (0-17 ಗುಂEೆ ಖಾˆ ೇ%) ಜIೕನನುK ಾಗರxಾ4 2ೇ ಹಂತ ಬಾವೆ&ಾe +ಾಂಕ 16.08.85ರC ಅಂQಮ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರ ದುL, +ಾಂಕ 19.12.86ರಂದು ಐQೕಪ>G ಅನು|ೕದೆaಾeರುತiೆ. ಸದ% ಜIೕನನುK ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.12.1986gÀAzÀÄ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀÄ ±ÁSÉUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.10.87gÀAzÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ 16(2) C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ?ೊರಸಾeರುತiೆ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß -ಾ./ಾರದ ಆB..Vಾ ೆಯCಡಾeರುತiೆ. ಅkGiಾರರು ಸದ% ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರCನ 8-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ Sಾನ3 ಉಚm ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ ಭೂಪ%?ಾರAಾe oಆBನುK Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ /ೋ%ದುL. /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಯವರು ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಡಬು‡.R.ನಂ.19922-24/2014 +ಾಂಕ 16.03.2016ರಂ ೆ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ರiಾLeದುL, ಭೂSಾCೕಕ%&ೆ nಆB Pೕಡುವ |ದಲು ಅkGiಾರ%ಂದ %ಅŠ‹[ಂb ೕ} ಪೆದು ನಂತರ -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಾ3aಾಲಯ/ೆn ಸCಸಾದ ಅRೕಲನುK yಂದ/ೆn ಪೆದು /ಾನೂPನJಯ ಮುಂ+ನ ಕಮವyಸಲು ಅ)-ಾಯಪoYರುವ yೆKೆಯC ಅkGiಾರ%ಂದ ಸದ% 8-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಪ% ಾ3ಜಾ ಪತವನುK ೊಂiಾ , ಸದ% ೊಂiಾತ ಪ% ಾ3ಜಾ ಪತದ ಪQಯನುK ಸCಸುವಂ ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ /ೋ%iೆ. ?ಾಗೂ ಈ ಬ&ೆN Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರವ%ಂದ ಅನು|ೕದೆ&ೊಂಡ ಕ•ೇ% oಪ€T ಪQಯನುK ಲಗQ iೆ. ¸À»/- 4{ೇಷ ಭೂಾJ.ೕಾ./ಾ%. ******* 24 ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.” (sic) On the said communication, the BDA further communicates to the 2nd respondent/Urban Development Department indicating that the Commissioner had approved execution of a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioners. The communication reads as follows: “ಸಂVೆ3 : ೆಂಅ-ಾ/4ಭೂಾJಅ/130/2019-20 +ಾಂಕ: 12.06.2019 ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖ3 /ಾಯGದGಗಳr ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ, 4/ಾಸ ೌಧ, 4ೇ ಮಹ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. Sಾನ3ೆ, 4ಷಯ:- ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಲ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರC 8-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನC ಖಾಬು 0-17 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ ಬದC PAೇಶನ oಆB/ಬದC ಜIೕನು /ೋ%ರುವ ಬ&ೆN. ಉೇಖ:- Sಾನ3 ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖ3/ಾಯGದGಗಳr, ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ ರವರ Sೌdಕ PiೇGಶನ. **** [ೕಲnಂಡ 4ಷಯ ಮತು ಉೇಖ/ೆn ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಲ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರC 9-02 (0-17 ಗುಂEೆ ಖಾˆ ೇ%) 25 ಜIೕನನುK ಾಗರxಾ4 2ೇ ಹಂತ ಬಾವೆ&ಾe +ಾಂಕ 9.08.1982ರಂದು' -ಾಥIಕ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆaಾeರುತiೆ. +ಾಂಕ 16.08.85ರC ಅಂQಮ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರ ದುL, +ಾಂಕ 19.12.86 ರಂದು LwÃ¥ÀÄð C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ಸದ% ಜIೕPನ£ÀÄß +ಾಂಕ 29.12.1986ರಂದು ಅ)ಯಂತರರ {ಾVೆ&ೆ ಹಾಂತ%ಸಾeರುತiೆ. +ಾಂಕ 06.10.87ರಂದು ಾJ.ೕನ ಪೆ+ರುವ ಬ&ೆN 16(2) ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರಸಾeರುತiೆ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ಭೂಪ%?ಾರವನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಆB..Vಾ ೆಯCಡಾeರುತiೆ. ಅkGiಾರಾದ ೕ . ೕ ಾಾ• ರವರು Sಾನ3 ಉಚm ಾ3aಾಲಯದ %b ಅkG ನಂ.19922-19924/2014ರ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ Sಾಳ&ಾಲ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರ 08-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ರiಾLeದುL, ಸದ% ಜIೕP&ೆ ಬದC ಜIೕನು ಅಥAಾ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ /ಾjL 2013ರ ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ/oಆB Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ /ೋ%ರು ಾೆ. ಈ ಬ&ೆN ಭೂSಾಪಕರು ?ಾಗೂ /ಾಯG-ಾಲಕ ಅ)ಯಂತರರು(ಪ`ಮ)ಇವರು ಜಂo ಸUಳ ತPVೆ Sಾ ೆnw ೊಂ+&ೆ ವರ+ ಸC ರು ಾೆ. ಸ?ಾಯಕ /ಾಯG-ಾಲಕ ಅ)ಯಂತರರು(ಪ)ಇವರ ಕಡತದ ಸಂ.124647ರC Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರC 09-02 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕನನುK ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಳfಾeದುL, ಈ -ೈ: 05-22 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನC + gPK ?ೌŽ 0Cಂ• /ೋ-ಆಪೇo• ೊೈo ಅ.. ಇವರು PAೇಶನಗಳನುK ರg ರು ಾೆ. ಉ@/ೆ zಾಗದC -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ PAೇಶನಗಳನುK ರg ಈ&ಾಗೇ ಾವGಜPಕ%&ೆ ಹಂg/ೆ Sಾಡಾeರುತiೆ ಎಂದು ೆnw ೊಂ+&ೆ ವರ+ಯನುK ಸC ರು ಾೆ. ಈ ಬ&ೆN /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಯವರ ಅ)-ಾಯವನುK ಪೆಯಾeದುL, Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ %b ಅkG ನಂ.19922-19924/2014ರ ಆiೇಶದ 4ರುದ, %b ಅRೕc ನಂ.1695/2016ನುK ಸCಸಾeದುL: ಪಕರಣವ> ಾ: ಇರುತiೆ. ಸದ% [ೕಲ\ನ4&ೆ ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> +ಾಂಕ 15.02.2019ರಂದು ಯ‘ಾ UQ /ಾ-ಾಡಲು ಮಧ3ಂತರ ಆiೇಶವನುK Pೕರುತiೆ. /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ%ಗಳr "In the meantime, the applicants have submitted the representation to the Learned Commissioner requesting them to give alternate land equivalent to 8 acres 25 guntas of land or the cash compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act 2013) or by way of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as the said land physically is not available for their use, as the BDA has already formed layout and utilized the same under allotment/Bulk allotment and the compensation amount is still in Revenue Account of the BDA. As verified from the Rules, Court orders and interest of the BDA, it is opined that, in this case TDR may be granted in favour of 26 the applicants, subject to execution of relinquishment deed by the applicant and after withdrawal of the Writ Appeal filed by the BDA and by referring the file to the appropriate Section for further needful" ಎಂದು ಅ)-ಾಯ Pೕರು ಾೆ. ಅದರಂ ೆ ಅkGiಾರ%ಂದ ಪ% ಾ3ಜನ ಪತ ಪೆದು ನಂತರ -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಾ3aಾಲಯ/ೆn ಸCಸಾದ ಅRೕಲನುK yಂದ/ೆn ಪೆದು /ಾನೂPನJಯ ಮುಂ+ನ ಕಮವyಸಲು ಅ)-ಾಯಪoYರುವ yೆKೆಯC ಅkGiಾರ%ಂದ ಸiಾ% 8 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಪ% ಾ3ಜ3ಾ ಪತವನುK ೋಂiಾ ಸದ% ೋಂiಾತ ಪ%ತ3ಜಾ ಪತದ ಪQಯನುK ಸCಸುವಂ ೆ ಅೌಪ1ಾ%ಕ oಪ€TಯನುK /ಾ.ಅ(ಪ)ರವ%&ೆ +ಾಂಕ 03.05.2019ರಂದು PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. +ಾಂಕ 03.05.2019ರಂದು ಅkGiಾರಾದ ೕ . ೕ ಾಾ• ರವರು ಪ>ನ: ಮನ4 ಸC . Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ %b ಅkG ನಂ.19922-19924/2014ರ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರCನ 08-25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಭೂಪ%?ಾರAಾe /ಾನೂPನJಯ ಬದC ಜIೕನು ಅಥAಾ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ /ಾjL 2013ರ ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ/oಆB Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ /ೋ%ದುL, ಪ%?ಾರವನುK PೕದC %b ಅkG.ನಂ.19922-19924/2014ರCನ ಆiೇಶವನುK Joint Memo ಸC yಂಪೆಯುವ>iಾe Q@ ರು ಾೆ. ಈ ಪಕರಣದC aಾವ>iೇ ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ ಅಥAಾ oಆB ಅನುK ಇದುವೆ4ಗೂ Pೕರುವ>+ಲ. [ೕCನ ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳನುK ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅವ&ಾಹೆ&ೆ ಸC iೆ. (ಕರಡು ಪತವ> Sಾನ3 ಆಯುಕರವರ ಕ•ೇ% ಸಂ.1124. +ಾಂಕ 04.06.19ರಂ ೆ ಅನು|ೕದೆaಾeರುತiೆ) ತಮ\ 4{ಾJ . ¸À»/- ಉಪಆಯುಕರು(ಭೂಾJ) ೆಂಅ-ಾ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.” If these communications had remained as communications, perhaps the petitioners could not have sought execution of their rights. They resulted in registered relinquishment deed on 12-04-2021 between the petitioners and officers of Government. Certain clauses of 27 relinquishment deed are necessary to be noticed and they read as follows: 28 29 30 31 Identical deeds are executed for various lands including that of the petitioners. Since it is relinquishment deed, no further explanation would be necessary. When the relinquishment deed recognizes that the petitioners have relinquished their possession in favour of the BDA, without any encumbrance, in lieu of which DRCs are to be issued to the petitioners to the extent of 2 times the area of the relinquished property. Therefore, the petitioners claim to be entitled to 69,800 sq.ft. as 8 acres 25 guntas was relinquished. 9. The further file notings of the lands are necessary to be noticed. Notings 177 to 180 read as follows: “(177) SLAO) -ಾ3ಾ (130) ರC 4ವ% ದಂ ೆ Joint Memo ಬ&ೆN ಕಮವyಸಲು /ಾನೂನು 4xಾಗ/ೆn ಸC iೆ. ಸy/- 4{ೇಷ ಭೂಾJ.ೕಾ./ಾ% ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. (178) L.O) (179) In continuation of the legal opinions given already at Para Nos. 101, 121, 130 & 169 of this file, it is stated as here under. The family members of 3 khatedars of Sy. No.16 of Malagala village during the pendency of W.A. No. 1695/2016 voluntarily requested for compensation in the form of TDR, to 32 their land where the BDA has already utilized and formed the layout. The BDA considered the said request and proceeded to write the letter to government about issue of TDR. After obtaining the reports from Survey and Engineer section, the proposal was submitted for withdrawal of W.A. No.1695/2016, with the further opinion to get the Relinquishment Deed to proceed further as per rules. The family members (22 members) of 3 khathedars of Sy.No.16 of Malagala Village, executed the Registered Relinquishment Deed on 12-04-2021 (000381 to 000395) by furnishing relevant ID proof documents namely Death Certificates, Family Trees, RTC and etc, in continuation of letter dated: 29-01-2021, insisting to file the Joint Memo in the pending W.A. No.1695/2016. In view of the above observations, subject to the decision of the TDR section, which is awaiting the order of the Government, the Joint Memo of all the Parties to the W.A. No.1695/2016 may be filed, seeking permission to withdraw / dispose of the appeal in terms of the Joint Memo. (Note: This W.A. No.1695/2016 is re-entrusted to BDA Panel Advocate Sri. B.S. Sachin from the earlier Panel Advocate Sri. Bipin Hegde). Sd/- 21.4.21 Law Officer-1 (E.Y. Vasanth Kumar) /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ% ೆಂ. ಆ. -ಾ. ೆಂಗಳ#ರು No.434 Dtd. 22.4.21 Commssioner) Sd/- 33 (180) Perused the Approval signature of Hon'ble Commissioner dated 22-4-21 (434). Forwarded these facts to S.L.A.O for further needful action. Sd/- 03.05.21 Law Officer-1 L..O. /ಾನೂನು ಅ./ಾ% ೆಂ. ಆ. -ಾ.” What is opined in the notings is that the lands of the petitioners have already been utilized and the BDA has executed relinquishment deed and the petitioners have voluntarily requested compensation in the form of TDRs. The petitioners then file an application before the Division Bench seeking closure of the proceedings on account of registered relinquishment deed. Before the Division Bench, in answer to the application, a submission is made that the BDA is seeking cancellation of registered relinquishment deed. On the application, the Division Bench passes the following order: “The present appeal is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority against the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single 34 Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and quashed the acquisition proceedings. Very strangely during the pendency of the appeal, it is stated at paragraph No.130 of notice of the BDA (File No.16 of Nagarabhavi) that in this regard, at this stage, in the interest of the BDA, it is once again opined that in this case TDR may be granted in favour of the applicants, subject to execution of the relinquishment deed by the applicants and after withdrawal of the writ appeal by filing joint memo and further action may be taken as per Rules/guidelines, orders if any is received from Government in this regard. According to Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, the same was approved by the Commissioner BDA and according to Sri. Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the BDA, it is not approved. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently BDA executed the registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the applicants on 12.04.2021 and the present application has been filed by the applicants/respondents for direction to the BDA to consider the case for TDR. The fact remains that the writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the writ appeal, BDA created the rights and asked the applicant to execute the relinquishment deed. Accordingly, applicants have executed the relinquishment deed. Thereby created one more litigation during the pendency of the present writ appeal and this is how the BDA obstruct the court proceedings, which is never expected. At this stage, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli seeks time. Call this matter next week. Sri. Sachin, learned counsel for the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that BDA had issued notice for cancellation of the relinquishment deed. The creation of right in favour of the applicants and execution of the relinquishment deed and now issuance of notice for cancellation of relinquishment deed, which is nothing but a separate cause of 35 action and there should not be any scope for such room in the present appeal. This shows the attitude of the BDA how the litigation has been created unnecessarily.” The Division Bench holds that it was a separate cause of action. The order is passed on 29-06-2022 and the subject petition is preferred on 2-08-2022 seeking the aforesaid prayer. 10. If the registered relinquishment deed had not been executed by the BDA creating a right of legitimate expectation upon the petitioners for issuance of TDRs and DRCs, it would have been a circumstance altogether different. But, the right is undoubtedly created by the very act of the BDA. What happens after filing of the writ petition is also necessary to be noticed. A communication springs between the Departments observing that even in cases of settlement, TDRs must be granted and quotes the illustration of the petitioners and opines that TDR should be granted. The communication reads as follows: “ಸಂVೆ3: +ಾಂಕ: No. Date: 24/03/2023 ¨ÉA.C.¥Áæ/E.N/n.r.Dgï ¸É¯ï/103/2022-23 36 ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖ3 /ಾಯGದGಗಳr, ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ, 4/ಾಸ ೌಧ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. Sಾನ3ೆ, 4ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16 ರCನ 08 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ರೂಪದC ಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡುವ §UÉÎ. ಉೇಖ: 1. -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 159/18 ರC /ೈ&ೊಂಡ +ಾಂಕ 15.12.2018 ರ PಣGಯ. 2. -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 64/23 ರC /ೈ&ೊಂಡ +ಾಂಕ 27.02.2023 ರ PಣGಯ. 3. ಸ/ಾGರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ3: ನಅಇ/21/ooR/2020(xಾಗ-2), +ಾಂಕ: 15.10.2022. ***** [ೕಲnಂಡ 4ಷಯ/ೆn ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ. ೕ . ೕ ಾಾ• ಮತು ಇತರರು -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಉಪlೕe /ೊಂರುವ Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16 ರCನ 08 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ರೂಪದC ಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡ ೇ/ೆಂದು /ೋ%ರು ಾೆ [ಅನುಬಂಧ-1]. ೕ . ೕ ಾಾ• ಮತು ಇತರರು ಭೂಾJ.ೕನವನುK ಪK Sಾನ3 ಕಾGಟಕ ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC W.P. No. 19922-19924/2014 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.03.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ಉದ”ತ xಾಗವ> ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡಂQರುತiೆ [ಅನುಬಂಧ-2]. 1. The respondents have now filed statement of objections which is taken on record only because the petitions could be disposed of summarily. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question has been notified under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The preliminary notification was dated 15.07.1982 followed by a final notification dated 16.08.1985. Thereafter, an award is to have been passed, the amount of compensation has been deposited in a revenue deposit in a sum of Rs.5,56,036.25, as per the 37 submissions made by the BDA in its statement of objections. This Court while disposing of a batch of petitions has formed an opinion that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act', for brevity) is applicable in so far as the B.D.A. Act, 1976 is concerned. Consequently, Section 24 of the 2013 Act is made applicable. It could follow that not only the Scheme has lapsed, but also the acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the said Act. 3. Consequently, the petitions are summarily allowed. The acquisition in respect of the land in question stands quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. W.P. No. 19922-19924/2014, +ಾಂಕ: 16.03.2016 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ Sಾನ3 ಕಾGಟಕ ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC iಾಖC ರುವ W.A. No.1695/2016 ಪಸುತ ಇತ3ಥG/ೆn ಾ: ಇರುತiೆ. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 3-12-2020 gÀAzÀÄ Mis. Appcn.No.1614- 1616/2019 in Mis. Appcn. No. 1346-1348/2019 in Civil Appeal No.7661-7663/2018 gÀ°è “It is also clear that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable for the acquisition made under the BDA Act” ಎಂದು ಆiೇ ದುL ಇಂತಹ ಎಾ ಪಕರಣಗಳC ಸದ% ಆiೇಶವನುK ಅನJ /ೊಳrfವ>ದು ಅವಶ34ರುತiೆ. +ಾಂಕ 15.12.2018 ರಂದು ನೆದ -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 159/18 ರ PಣGಯದ ಉದ,ತ xಾಗ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡಂQiೆ. [ಅನುಬಂಧ-3] "3. ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನ4ಲiೇ -ಾ./ಾರವ> ರೆ ಮತು ಇತೆ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ೌಕಯGಗ@&ೆ ಉಪlೕe /ೊಂರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC ಪ%?ಾರ -ಾವQಸಲು ಾ:ರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC ಸ/ಾGರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ3: ನಅಇ/442/ ೆಂಭೂಾJ/2017, +ಾಂಕ 09.10.2018 ರ ಪತದC Pೕರುವ ಆiೇಶದಂ ೆ ಪQ ಎಕೆ ಒಂದ/ೆn 11,979 ಚ.ಅ 4 ೕಣG ಅ)ವೃ+,ಪ ದ PAೇಶನಗಳನುK Pೕಡುವ ಬ&ೆN ?ಾಗೂ ಅkGiಾರರು /ೋ%ದC ಅ)ವೃ+,ಪ ದ PAೇಶನದ ಬದC&ೆ PಯSಾನುಾರ o..ಆB Pೕಡಲು; 38 4. ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನ /ಾjLಯ ಭೂ ಾJ.ೕನ ಪೆದು, ಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡiೇ ಇರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC Vಾ ೆiಾರರು ನಗದು ಪ%?ಾರ/ೆn ಬದಾe o..ಆB Pೕಡಲು /ೋ%ದC PಯSಾನುಾರ o..ಆB Pೕಡಲು;" +ಾಂಕ: 15.12.2018 ರಂದು ನೆದ -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 193/18 ರ PಣGಯದ ಉzÀÝøತ xಾಗ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡಂQiೆ. [ಅನುಬಂಧ-4] "KTCP (ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ಪlೕಜನ) Pಯಮ 2016 ರಂ ೆ -ಾ./ಾರವ> ಬಾವೆ ರgಸಲು ಾJ.ೕನ ಪ /ೊಂಡ ?ಾಗೂ ಾJ.ೕನ ಪ /ೊಂಡು ಭೂ ಪ%?ಾರವನುK Pೕಡiೇ ಇರುವ ಪಕರಣಗ@&ೆ o..ಆB ನುK 4ಸ%ಸುವ 4ಷಯವನುK ಸ/ಾGರ/ೆn ಸCಸಲು;" ಕಾGಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜೆ /ಾjL 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14-0 ರC ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne Aಾ3Vಾ3P ರುವ ಉzÀÝøತ xಾಗ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡಂQiೆ. "Public purpose", means and includes for the purpose of,- (i) Any road widening/any road formation as proposed in Master Plan or as proposed by the Local Authority; (ii) Any Infrastructure projects approved by the Government (Transportation, Water Supply, Sewage, Electricity, etc...) (iii) Providing for parking, parks, playgrounds and open spaces or any other public places proposed in the master plan or proposed by Local Authority except cases under Section 15 and 17; (iv) Providing EWS/LIG/affordable housing; and (v) Any other public purpose notified by the Government from time to time." +ಾಂಕ: 27.02.2023 ರಂದು ನೆದ -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 64/23 ರ PಣGಯದ ಉzÀÝøತ xಾಗ ಈ /ೆಳಕಂಡಂQiೆ [ಅನುಬಂಧ-5]. ಕಾGಟಕ ಪಟYಣ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜಾ /ಾjL 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14(0) ರ ಅಂಶ (zೆ) ರC Aಾ3Vಾ3P ರುವ "ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶ" Aಾ3Rlಳ&ೆ ಬರುವ ಪಕರಣಗ@&ೆ ?ಾಗೂ +ಾಂಕ: 03.06.2004 ರ ನಂತರದ ಪಕರಣಗ@&ೆ Sಾತ "ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳನುK" Pೕಡಲು ಅವ/ಾಶಗ@ದುL, -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಬಾವೆಯನುK ರgಸಲು ಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಂಡ ಜIೕP&ೆ 39 ಅಥAಾ ಬಾವೆ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಂಡು ಭೂಪ%?ಾರವನುK Pೕಡ+ರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC o..ಆB ಅನುK Pೕಡಲು ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯ ಅಗತ34iೆjಂಬ ಅ)-ಾಯ ವ3ಕAಾತು. ಇiೇ %ೕQಯ ಹಲAಾರು ಪಕರಣಗ@ರುವ yೆKೆಯC ಸು.ೕಘGAಾe ಚgG ದ ನಂತರ ಸದ% ಪಕರಣವನುK ಉೇd , /ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗ@&ೆ ಸ/ಾGರದ ಆiೇಶವನುK ಪೆಯುವ>ದು ಸೂಕAೆಂದು PಣGಸಾತು. 1) ಕಾGಟಕ ಪಟYಣ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜಾ /ಾjL 1961ರ ಕಲಂ 14(0) ರ ಅಂಶ (zೆ)ರC ವ3ಕAಾeರುವ "ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶ" Aಾ3Rಯ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne "-ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಬಾವೆಯ ರಚೆ&ಾe ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ ರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳನುK" o..ಆB. Pೕಡುವ ಸಲುAಾe ೇಪG ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯನುK ?ೊರಸುವಂ ೆ /ೋರಲು 2) ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡiೇ ಜIೕನು ಉಪlೕe /ೊಂರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC Sಾನ3 ಾ3aಾಲಯಗಳr Pೕರುವ ಆiೇಶದನJಯ ಹಣದ ರೂಪದ ಪ%?ಾರದ ಬದಾe "ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳನುK" Pೕಡುವ ಬ&ೆN ಸ/ಾGರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ3:ನಅಇ/21/ooR/ 2020(xಾಗ-2), ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15.10.2022gÀ ಪತದC ರೂR ರುವ SಾನದಂಡಗಳನುK ಾ:ರುವ ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಪಕರಣಗಳಲೂ ಸ?ಾ ಅನJಸಲು; 3) %b ಅRೕಲು ಸಂVೆ3:1695/2016ರCನ PಣGಯವ> -ಾ./ಾರದ ಪರAಾe ಬಂದರೂ ಸಹ ಈ&ಾಗೇ ಬಾವೆ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne ಬಳ /ೊಂರುವ Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16ರCನ 08 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನ ಭೂSಾCೕಕ%&ೆ ಇದುವೆ4ಗೂ -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಪ%?ಾರ -ಾವQaಾಗiೇ ಇರುವ>ದ%ಂದ ?ಾಗೂ ಪKತ ಜIೕನು 1990ರ ಅವ.ಯC ಬಾವೆ ರಚೆ&ಾe ಬಳ/ೆaಾeದLರೂ ಸಹ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ೆಯನುK Sಾನ3 ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ರದುL&ೊ@ ದ yೆKೆಯC, +ಾಂಕ: 12.04.2021 ರಂದು ಪ% ಾ3ಜಾ ಪತವನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಪರAಾe ೋಂiಾ ರುವ>ದ%ಂದ +ಾಂಕ:03.06.2004ರ ನಂತರದ ಪಕರಣAೆಂದು ಪ%ಗT , ಅkGiಾರರ /ೋ%/ೆಯನJಯ o..ಆB Pೕಡಲು ?ಾಗೂ ತತ•ಂಬಂಧ Sಾನ3 ಉಚ`ಾ3aಾಲಯದC [| iಾಖCಸಲು; [ೕಲnಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ yೆKೆಯC, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶಗ@&ಾe ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಂಡು ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡiೇ ಜIೕನು ಉಪlೕe /ೊಂರುವ ಈ ಪಕರಣದC, ಹಣದ ರೂಪದ ಪ%?ಾರದ ಬದಾe "ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳನುK Pೕಡುವ ಬ&ೆN ಸ/ಾGರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ3:ನಅಇ/21/ooR/2020(xಾಗ-2). +ಾಂಕ: 15.10.2022 ರ ಪತದC ರೂR ರುವ SಾನದಂಡಗಳನುK ಾ:ರುವ ಈ ಪಕರಣದCಯೂ ಸ?ಾ ಅನJ /ೊಂಡು 40 ಭೂ SಾCೕಕರು ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳ ರೂಪದC ಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡುವಂ ೆ ಸC ರುವ ಮನ4&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳನುK Pೕಡಲು +ಾಂಕ: 27.02.2023 ರಂದು ನೆದ -ಾ./ಾರದ ಸxೆಯ 4ಷಯ ಸಂVೆ3: 64/23 ರ PಣGಯದ ಅಂಶಗ@&ೆ ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ ಸ/ಾGರ+ಂದ ಸೂಕ ಆiೇಶ ?ೊರಸುವಂ ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ /ೋರಾeiೆ. ತಮ\ 4{ಾJ , ¸À»/- ಆಯುಕರು ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.” The Commissioner files an affidavit before this Court in the subject petition that the petitioners could be considered for issuing TDRs and DRCs. The affidavit reads as follows: “I, Jayaram N, Aged about 59 years, presently officiating as the Commissioner, BDA, Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I submit that I am officiating as the Commissioner, BDA. I am conversant with the facts of the case. I am competent to swear to the contents of this Affidavit. The statement made by me in this Affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge, Information given to me and are based on the records maintained in our office. 2. I submit that this Hon'ble Court directed the Commissioner, BDA to file an affidavit conveying the decision of the BDA to proceed to issue TDR certificate to the Petitioner. 3. I submit that the petitioners in this writ petition are praying for grant of Transferrable Development Rights under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ("KTCP Act" for short) to the petitioners as compensation for the utilization of schedule property which is the land bearing Sy.No.16 situated at Malagala Village, 41 Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 08 Acres 25 guntas, in total 09 Acres 02 guntas including 17 guntas of kharab land. 4. I submit that it is the case of the petitioners that the land in question has been notified under Preliminary Notification dated 12.08.1982 and Final Notification dated 05.08.1986 for the formation of Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage Layout. The land in question has been utilized by the BDA. 5. I submit that the land owners had not received compensation and finally had challenged acquisition proceedings by preferring writ petition which came to be allowed quashing the acquisition proceedings. The land owners have executed Relinquishment Deed on 12.04.2021 for an extant of 08 Acre 25 Guntas (34900 Sq.Mtrs) to the BDA relinquishing their right to claim compensation in the form of TDR. 6. I submit that the question of Issuance of Transferrable Development Right Certificates to the land owners who surrendered their lands on or before 03.06.2004 is not applicable as per sub-section (1) of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2021, 7. I submit that in accordance with provisions of Section 14-B of the KTCP Act, the scope "public purposes" means and include as hereunder: "Public purpose", means and includes for the purpose of,- (i) Any road widening/any road formation as proposed in Master Plan or as proposed by the Local Authority; (ii) Any Infrastructure projects approved by the Government (Transportation, Water Supply, Sewage, Electricity, etc....) (iii) Providing for parking, parks, playgrounds and open spaces or any other public places proposed in the master plan or proposed by Local Authority except cases under Section 15 and 17; 42 (iv) Providing EWS/LIG/affordable housing; and (v) Any other public purpose notified by the Government from time to time." 8. I submit that in cases where compensation have not been paid to the land owners whose lands have already been utilized without giving compensation, Government in its letter No.UDD 21 TTP 2020 (Part-II) dated 15.10.2022 has issued guidelines regarding granting of Development Rights in lieu of monetary compensation "in such cases wherein Hon'ble Court has directed the concerned agencies /authorities to pay monetary compensation for lands and owners of such lands agrees to take Development Rights Certificates". The letter also specifies that "in all ongoing cases related to TDR/DRCS, further action may be taken as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Court". A Copy of the Government letter dated 15.10.2022 Is herewith produced Annexure-R1. 9. I submit that presently in the cases of D. Seetharam and Others, WA No.1695/2016 and WP No.15734/2022 are pending disposal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 10. I submit that the utilization of land for formation of layout was not coming under the purview of "public purposes" as defined in the Act and therefore it was necessary to seek directions from the Government and also directions so as to include utilization of such land for public purposes in accordance with law, in respect of cases subsequent to 03.06.2004. Therefore, the proposals were placed before the Authority for resolving the issue regarding payment of suitable compensation or issue of Development Rights. 11. I submit that, the said proposal was discussed in the Authority in its meeting dated 27.02.2023 vide subject No.64/2023, and the Authority has resolved as hereunder: 1. ಕಾGಟಕ ಪಟYಣ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜಾ /ಾjL 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14(0) ರ ಅಂಶ (k) ರC ವ3ಕAಾeರುವ "ಾವGಜPಕ ಉiೆLೕಶ" Aಾ3Rಯ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne "-ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಬಾವೆಯ ರಚೆ&ಾe ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ ರುವ 43 ಪಕರಣಗಳನುK" o..ಆB. Pೕಡುವ ಸಲುAಾe ೇಪG ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯನುK ?ೊರಸುವಂ ೆ /ೋರಲು; 2. ಭೂಪ%?ಾರ Pೕಡiೇ ಜIೕನು ಉಪlೕe /ೊಂರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳC Sಾನ3 ಾ3aಾಲಯಗಳr Pೕರುವ ಆiೇಶದನJಯ ಹಣದ ರೂಪದ ಪ%?ಾರದ ಬದಾe "ಅ)ವೃ+, ಹಕುnಗಳನುK" Pೕಡುವ ಬ&ೆN ಸ/ಾGರದ ಪತ ಸಂVೆ3: ನCಇ/21/ooR/2020 (xಾಗ-2), +ಾಂಕ: 15.10.2022 ರ ಪತದC ರೂR ರುವ SಾನದಂಡಗಳನುK ಾ:ರುವ ಾ3aಾಲಯದ ಪಕರಣಗಳಲೂ ಸಹ ಅನJಸಲು; 3. %b ಅRೕಲು ಸಂVೆ3: 1695/2016 ರCನ PಣGಯವ> -ಾ./ಾರದ ಪರAಾe ಬಂದರೂ ಸಹ ಈ&ಾಗೇ ಬಾವೆ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne ಬಳ /ೊಂರುವ Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16 ರCನ 08 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನ ಭೂSಾCೕಕ%&ೆ ಇದುವೆ4ಗೂ -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಪ%?ಾರ -ಾವQaಾಗiೇ ಇರುವ>ದ%ಂದ ?ಾಗೂ ಪKತ ಜIೕನು 1990ರ ಅವ.ಯC ಬಾವೆ ರಚೆ&ಾe ಬಳ/ೆaಾeದLರೂ ಸಹ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ೆಯನುK Sಾನ3 ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ರದುL&ೊ@ ದ yೆKೆಯC, +ಾಂಕ: 12.04.2021 ರಂದು ಪ% ಾ3ಜಾ ಪತವನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಪರAಾe ೋಂiಾ ರುವ>ದ%ಂದ +ಾಂಕ: 03.06.2004 ರ ನಂತರದ ಪಕರಣAೆಂದು ಪ%ಗT , ಅkGiಾರರ /ೋ%/ೆಯನJಯ o..ಆB. Pೕಡಲು ?ಾಗೂ ತತ•ಂಬಂಧ Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC [| iಾಖCಸಲು; A copy of the proceedings of the Authority dated 27.02.2023 subject No.64/2023 is herewith produced as Annexure-R2. 12. I submit that the Government was requested to consider the question of issuing Development Rights in lieu of compensation to the land owners whose lands were utilized for public purposes under the provisions of Section 14-B of the KTCP Act and on the basis of resolution of the board dated 27.02.2023 in the light of the guidelines contained in Government Letter No. ನCಇ/21/ooR/2020 (xಾಗ-2), dated 15.10.2022 and to issue necessary orders in this regard vide letter No.BDA/EO/TDR Cell/103/2022-23, dated 24.03.2023. A copy of the letter dated 24.03.2023 is herewith produced Annexure - R3. 44 13. I submit that immediately upon the receipt of orders from the Government, this Authority will execute the directions of the Government. I do hereby verify and state that the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.” This is further communicated to the Government. The Government is said to have rejected the proposal by the following order: “ಸಂVೆ3: ನCE:120 JAJ£ïJPïì 2023(E) ಕಾGಟಕ ಸ/ಾGರದ ಸgAಾಲಯ, 4/ಾಸೌಧ, 4ೇ ಮಹ, ಾ|| 0.ಆB.ಅಂ ೇಡnB 4ೕ+, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು +ಾಂಕ:06-06-2025 ಇವ%ಂದ: ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖ3 /ಾಯGದG, ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ, 4/ಾಸೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಇವ%&ೆ ಆಯುಕರು ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ, ೆಂಗಳ#ರು. Sಾನ3ೇ, 4ಷಯ: ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಉತರ ಾಲೂಕು, ಯಶವಂತಪ>ರ ?ೋಬ@, Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 16ರCನ 08ಎಕೆ 25ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕP&ೆ o..ಆB. Pೕಡುವ ಕು%ತು. ಉೇಖ: ತಮ\ ಪತಸಂVೆ3: ೆಂಅ-ಾ/ಇಓ-oಆB ೆc/103/2022-23, +ಾಂಕ: 28.03.2023. **** 45 [ೕಲnಂಡ 4ಷಯ/ೆn ಸಂಬಂ. ದಂ ೆ, ಉೇdತ ತಮ\ ಪತದCನ ಪಾವೆಯC ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ+ಂದ ಬಾವೆ ಉiೆLೕಶ/ಾne ಬಳ /ೊಂರುವ Sಾಳ&ಾಳ &ಾಮದ ಸAೆG ನಂ.16 ರCನ 08 ಎಕೆ 25 ಗುಂEೆ ಜIೕPನ ಭೂSಾCೕಕ%&ೆ ಇದುವೆ4ಗೂ -ಾ./ಾರದ ವQಂದ ಪ%?ಾರ -ಾವQaಾಗiೇ ಇರುವ>ದ%ಂದ ?ಾಗೂ ಪKತ ಜIೕನು 1990ರ ಅವ.ಯC ಬಾವೆ ರಚೆ&ಾe ಬಳ/ೆaಾeದLರೂ ಸಹ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ೆಯನುK Sಾನ3 ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> ರದುL&ೊ@ ದ yೆKೆಯC +ಾಂಕ: 12.04.2021 ರಂದು ಪ% ಾ3ಜಾ ಪತವನುK -ಾ./ಾರದ ಪರAಾe ೋಂiಾ ರುವ>ದ%ಂದ +ಾಂಕ:03.06.2004ರ ನಂತರದ ಪಕರಣAೆಂದು ಪ%ಗT , ಅkGiಾರರ /ೋ%/ೆಯನKಯ o..ಆB Pೕಡಲು ?ಾಗೂ ತತ•ಂಬಂಧ Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC [| iಾಖCಸುವ ಬ&ೆN ಸ/ಾGರದ ಆiೇಶ ?ೊರಸುವಂ ೆ /ೋ%ರುವ>ದು ಸ%ಯuೆYೕ. ಪ%ೕCಸಾe, ಈ ಪಕರಣದC ಪಾRತ ಜIೕನನುK ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ /ಾjL 1976ರನJಯ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಳfಲು +ಾಂಕ: 15.07.1982ರC -ಾಥIಕ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರ , ಅಂQಮ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆಯನುK +ಾಂಕ: 16.08.1985ರC ?ೊರಸಾeದುL, ರೂ. 5,56,036.00ಗ@&ೆ ಐQೕಪ>G ರg ಪ%?ಾರದ |ತವನುK ಆB.. Vಾ ೆಯC% ರುವ>ದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತiೆ. Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದ %b ಅkG ಸಂVೆ3 19922-19924/2014 ರ +ಾಂಕ: 16.03.2016 ರ ಆiೇಶದC The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 /ಾjLಯು ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ /ಾjL 1976 /ೆn ಅನJಯAಾಗುವ>iೆಂದು ಅ)-ಾ , ಭೂ SಾCೕಕರ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಅನJಸುವಂ ೆ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನವನುK ರದುL&ೊ@ ರುತiೆ. ಈ ಆiೇಶವನುK ಪK ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರವ> Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC [ೕಲ\ನ4 WA. 1695/2016 ಸC ದುL, ಸದ% [ೕಲ\ನ4ಯು ಾ:ರುತiೆ. ಆದೆ, Sಾನ3 ಸœೕGಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯವ> +ಾಂಕ: 3.12.2020 ರಂದು Misc. Appn. No.1614-1616/2019 and Mis. Appn. No.1346-1348/2019 in Civil Appeal No:7661-7663/2018 "It is also clear that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable for the acquisition made under the BDA Act" ಎಂದು ಆiೇ ರುತiೆ. ಈ yೆKೆಯC ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರವ> ಸC ರುವ WA. No. 1695/2016 ರ ಅಂQಮ ಆiೇಶವನುK P%ೕŠಸುವ>ದು ಸಮಂಜಸAಾeರುತiೆ ?ಾಗೂ ಸದ% [ೕಲ\ನ4 ಾ: ಇದLರೂ ಸಹ ಭೂSಾCೕಕ%ಂದ +ಾಂಕ: 12.04.2021 ರಂದು 0..ಎ ಪರAಾe ಪ% ಾ3ಜನ ಪತವನುK ೊಂiಾ /ೊಂರುವ>ದು ಸ%aಾದ ಕಮAಾeರುವ>+ಲ. 46 ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ /ಾjL 1976 ರನKಯ ಬಾವೆ PSಾGಣ/ಾne ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪಸಲು 1982ರC ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರ ರುವ ಜIೕP&ೆ ಕಾGಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತು &ಾSಾಂತರ lೕಜಾ /ಾjL 1961 ರ ಕಲಂ 14-8 ರನKಯ oಆB Pೕಡಲು ಅವ/ಾಶ4ರುವ>+ಲ. zೊ ೆ&ೆ ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರ /ಾjL 1976ರನJಯ ಭೂಾJ.ೕನಪ /ೊಂಡ ಪಕರಣಗಳC -ಾಥIಕ ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ ?ೊರ ದ +ಾಂಕದ SಾರುಕEೆY ೆೆಯನುK ಪ%ಗT ಪ%?ಾರ Pಗ+ಪಸಾಗುತiೆ. ಪ%?ಾರವನುK ಭೂ SಾCೕಕ%&ೆ -ಾವQಸiೇ ಇರುವ /ಾರಣ Pೕ oಆB (ಆB ) ಅನುK Pೕಡಲು ಪಾವೆ ಸC ರುವ>ದು PಯಮಬದLAಾeರುವ>+ಲ. ಏ/ೆಂದೆ, oಆB ಮಂಜೂರು SಾಡುAಾಗ, ಪಸುತ +ನದ SಾರುಕEೆY ದರವನುK ಪ%ಗTಸ ೇ/ಾಗುತiೆ. ಅಂದೆ, 1982ರC ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ/ಾne ಅ.ಸೂಚೆ&ೊ@ ದ ಜIೕP&ೆ 2025ರ SಾರುಕEೆY ದರಕnನುಗುಣAಾe oಆB (ಆB ) Pೕಡ ೇ/ಾಗುತiೆ. ಸದ% oಆB Sೌಲ3ವ> ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ /ಾjLಯ 1982ರ SಾರುಕEೆY ದರದ ಆtಾರದ [ೕೆ&ೆ Pಗ+ಪಸುವ ನಗದು ಪ%?ಾರ:nಂತ ಹಲವ> ಪಟುY ?ೆ1ಾ`ಗCiೆ. Sಾನ3 ಉಚ` ಾ3aಾಲಯದC ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ಅ)ವೃ+, -ಾ./ಾರವ> iಾಖC ರುವ WA, 1695/2016 ರC ಭೂಾJ.ೕನ ಪ>:jಯನುK ಎQyದC -ಾವQಸಾಗುವ ?ೆಚು`ವ% ಪ%?ಾರವನುK ಭೂ SಾCೕಕ%ಂದ -ಾ./ಾರ/ೆn ಮರು-ಾವQ /ೊಳrfವ>ದು ಕಷYಾಧ3Aಾಗುತiೆ. ಆದL%ಂದ, [ೕಲnಂಡ ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ yೆKೆಯC, 1ಾCಯCರುವ /ಾjL ?ಾಗೂ PಯಮಗಳನJಯ ಈ ಪಕರಣದC oಆB/ಆB ಮಂಜೂರು Sಾಡಲು ಅಪ/ಾಶ4ರುವ>+ಲ ಎಂದು ತಮ&ೆ Q@ಸಲು PiೇGತಾeiೆLೕೆ. ತಮ\ ನಂಬು&ೆಯ ಸy/- (ಾzೇŸ ಎŽ. ಸೂ@/ೇ%) ಸ/ಾGರದ ಅ.ೕನ /ಾಯGದG, ನಗಾ)ವೃ+, ಇಾVೆ (0ಎ ಮತು ೆಂಗಳ#ರು-1).” It is the case of the Government that merely because compensation is not paid to the petitioners, TDRs cannot be granted, as the writ appeal was still pending before the Division Bench and granting of TDRs on the market value of 2025 is not feasible. 47 11. The lands of the petitioners are acquired and utilized without payment of compensation. It is, therefore, BDA itself comes forward and executed a relinquishment deed, granting certain rights in favour of the petitioners. Compensation has not been deposited in the civil Court as is necessary in law, but deposited in a recurring deposit account. In such circumstances, what the Apex Court holds in the case of RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1 is germane to be noticed. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 26. In the order impugned before the High Court, no effort was made to explain as to why the opinion taken by the respondent No. 1/State had to be brushed aside. No explanation has been offered that justified disagreement with the said opinion; no effort was made by the State to approach the learned Advocate General for obtaining a fresh opinion on the plea that the letter seeking the earlier opinion, had furnished erroneous facts. In all this back and forth between respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4/Corporation, it is the appellants who have been left high and dry. They had surrendered the subject land to the authorities as far back as in the year 2004 on the expectation of being granted TDR, which has still not materialized. In these eighteen years, the respondents have continued to retain the possession of the subject land. In the course of arguments advanced before this Court, it was specifically enquired from learned counsel for the respondents that the land having been surrendered for a public purpose, whether the same has been put to any such use, the 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1081 48 Court was first informed that a reservoir has been built on the land; later, it was stated that the status of the land has remained the same as it was when it was surrendered. 27. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that gross injustice has been caused to the appellants who had offered their land to the respondent No. 3/Corporation on the basis of a Scheme floated by it proposing to acquire land for public purpose and grant TDR to the land owners in lieu of the land. Having decided to award TDR @ 100% FSI to the appellants, later on the respondents reneged from their decision and slashed the offered TDR to 4% FSI on the premise that the appellants could not compare their land with the adjoining lands for claiming residential use since the said land is also in the nature of ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’. We may note that the boundation of the land as was mentioned by the Principal Secretary, UD Department to the learned Advocate General in the communication dated 3rd September, 2003, has been specifically stated to be residential zone towards the North where buildings could be constructed with FSI that is available in the residential zone. Yet again, towards the west of the subject plot, is the ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone and a canal further to which residential/public utility development with FSI of 1.00 was available. When to the north and the west of the subject land, residential construction was permissible and till date, the lands falling in ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone have not been zoned for being put to any use, the appellants cannot be expected to wait till eternity for the respondents to take a decision in this regard. … … … 31. Having considered the factual matrix of the present appeal where the matter has been lingering in courts for over eighteen years and there have been several rounds of litigation, three before the High Court and two before this Court in respect of the subject land, which has all along remained in the possession of the respondent No. 3/Corporation, thereby not only depriving the appellants of its use but also depriving them of the compensation to which they were entitled as long back as in the year 2004, we are unable to concur with the impugned judgment. In ordinary course, we would have been inclined to restore the TDR granted to the appellants by the respondent No. 3/Corporation on 28th May, 2004. However, keeping in mind the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 49 and 4/Corporation that extensive construction has mushroomed in Pune over the past two decades and additional construction of over seven lakhs sq. feet, if permitted, will cause a severe strain on the civic amenities available in the city, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4/Corporation to return the land acquired by it to the appellants within four weeks. Once the possession is restored, the appellants shall be permitted to use it for residential purposes. Further, the respondents are directed to compensate the appellants @ Rs. 1 crore per year for the loss caused to them on surrendering per 66,000 sq. mts. of land way back in the year 2004. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order.” The Apex Court holds that when the land losers are stripped off enjoyment of possession of the land, they cannot but be compensated. Since construction had mushroomed in Pune city for over two decades, TDRs were directed to be granted. The case at hand is identical to what the Apex Court had considered. The Apex Court, again, in the case of KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2 holds as follows: “…. …. …. 70. We have referred to the decisions of this Court where the question of delay and laches would not arise in matters such as the present cases. When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution. As rightly contended by the 2 (2024) 14 SCC 594 50 learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants herein, the respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation has not established that owing to a short delay even if it has occurred in any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law, the Corporation has been prejudiced by the same or that the third-party rights had been created which could not be disturbed owing to delay or laches. The calculation of period of delay in the table submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not acceptable in view of our discussion above. The decisions referred to by us above would clearly indicate that neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases. Rather the delay has occurred on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in complying with the Regulations insofar as these appellants are concerned.” The Apex Court holds that compensation is a matter of right, otherwise it would be in breach of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, as land losers do not have the land nor the compensation. Therefore, with or without representation the land loser is entitled to grant of compensation. With the law being thus and execution of a registered relinquishment deed by the BDA cannot now be rendered an volte-face by the Government, contending that it was not feasible to grant TDRs. In the light of the registered relinquishment deed and several communications between the wings of the Government, TDRs and DRCs are to be granted and the petition accordingly deserves to succeed, by issuance of a mandamus to grant TDRs and DRCs to the petitioners. 51 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The communication of the 2nd respondent/State dated 06-06-2025 stands quashed. (iii) A mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/Bangalore Development Authority to determine Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in favour of the petitioners by executing appropriate Development Rights Certificate (DRCs) in furtherance of registered relinquishment deed, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (iv) The action as at Sl.No.(iii) shall be taken within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp/CT:SS Page No.51 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 28.04.2026